Comments

So, there’s no gladness that Greta’s hysterectomy went so well, no being impressed that’s she’s getting back into her stride so quickly, just whinge-moan-pout that a woman who works buys shoes suitable to work in.

If I thought these idiots were fully human I’d apply to join another species.

If Greta had even given an inkling what the *months* worth of money was going to, I’d be much more accommodating. But she hasn’t. Not one single tweet or post about it. The next thing people hear is how she bought shoes that many of us middle income people wouldn’t even think about, much less if we had to worry about cancer.

My guy is being checked for lymphoma. Yeah, curable. But not as easily as Greta. First off, it would never occur to us to go online and e-beg. However, if we had to for some reason, you had better believe every single cent sent to us would be publicly accounted for. That’s my problem.

If you have an issue with this then I can only make one conclusion: you are unethical and not someone I want representing me to the public in as far as being an atheist or a skeptic. You’re on the same level as theist televangelists.

Renee, to be perfectly honest with you, the people you want representing the skeptical and atheist communities are pretty fucked up people, so pardon me if I take no notice of who you want representing us.
As Anthony said, run back to your cult.

My work relates to cancer. Every year, our division and related people collect money to assist families struggling to deal with diagnoses.

The money is intended to take care of incidentals, including travel to and from the hospital to receive chemo, meals, hotel room stays, and yes, holiday presents for any kids. In other words, they’re welcome to use it as they see fit. No accounting necessary.

If you have a problem with this, then I can only conclude that you’re a fucking douchebag, a d it’s none of your fucking business to whom I give my money, and for what they use it for.

The outpouring of donations for Greta was so large that she said she had more than she needed and should she donate the rest. The general reactions was for her to spend some money on herself getting something fun. She did. So the slymepit and general FTB haters are whining because she bought herself some expensive shoes.

But Greta shouldn’t have to apologize to anyone or excuse what she did. She’s an adult and can spend her money on whatever she pleases. Besides, she’s testing the Sam Vimes theory of boots:

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

Greta’s “months worth of money” is going to her living expenses, because, as you may have noticed, her income is completely from writing, with just a little from this blog. (She is also married to a nurse, I think.)

“Begging” for money is a primary way for people who create online to make money nowadays. Lots of webcomic artists do it. And lots ask for more when they have emergency bills, or are laid up and cannot otherwise work.

Our host Ophelia Benson has a donate button on this very page.

You don’t have to contribute. But you expect Greta to itemize her income and expenses for your sake: so much for rent, insurance, utilities, food, etc. And no splurging!

If you gave a gift to Greta, which I doubt, and you don’t like what she’s done with it then ask for it back. Only ask for it back as publicly as you are now whining about shoes. Shoes for work, for fuck’s sake. She’s not buying a ski resort with it!

I am among the others here who believe that it’s only a gift if you hand it over and forget about it. You seem to see a gift as some sort of ticket which entitles you to follow the recipient around and check up on them.

My guy is being checked for lymphoma. Yeah, curable. But not as easily as Greta. First off, it would never occur to us to go online and e-beg. However, if we had to for some reason, you had better believe every single cent sent to us would be publicly accounted for. That’s my problem.

If you have an issue with this then I can only make one conclusion: you are unethical and not someone I want representing me to the public in as far as being an atheist or a skeptic. You’re on the same level as theist televangelists.

First — speaking as someone who gave money to assist Greta during her cancer recovery, I don’t have a problem with her spending money on good professional attire. After all, her professional work involves both writing and public speaking. Renee — if you didn’t contribute to Greta’s fund request (and I’m assuming you didn’t), then why is this a problem for you.

Second — Greta does have a professional record as a writer and speaker. She recently took the career change plunge and decided to write and speak professionally full-time. I’ve read her book and have also read her blog for many years. Her requests for small donations during her cancer diagnosis is different from Renee Hendricks asking for funds. There is no reader relationship there for me nor is the level of trust there. After all, how do we know that Renee has a spouse or life-partner with lymphoma.

Third — given the response that the shoes caused, I’m glad that Greta didn’t follow my suggestion and spend any extra contributions on artisan slim-jims and cardamom-flavored pork rinds.

That’s what you don’t get, Maureen. Everything Renee and all her slymey friends have to say/think is of immense importance; it needs to be heard, and you have no right to not hear it – why, that’d be censorship!

Actually, I suspect the real reason Renee Hendricks wouldn’t ‘resort to e-begging’ is because she’s fully aware of exactly what sort of people her ‘supporters’ are (unlike Greta’s; as has been noted, she got enough in donations to donate the excess to charity) deep down, and that she’d be lucky to get enough cash to buy a bus ticket from what they coughed up.

Thanks for making me laugh, Wowbagger. I can’t help but remember that I lost my kid sister not long ago to cancer and after a long, hard fight.

If she had survived then she’s have needed a whole new wardrobe with that colostomy bag, given what she used to wear. Would I have complained? No, I’d have gone shopping with her or for her. But then I’m just an idiot – not nearly nasty enough for ReneeHendricks’ planned dystopia.

Actually, Wowbagger, I have a rather large base of people who follow me not only on Twitter but on a large number of social media outlets. Also, my nick on more than a few of those outlets doesn’t correspond with my actual legal name where I have an even larger base of supporter/followers/friends/co-workers/etal. I suspect that if I felt a need to e-beg, I’d be more than covered for quite a bit of time. But that’s not how I was brought up. That aside, if for some odd reason I *had* to e-beg, ethics would compel me to let all those donating know where their money was going. It’s a small matter of courtesy. I’d feel like scum if I didn’t and suddenly put out how I bought a bitching pair of shoes. MHO.

I worked at the Red Cross (Australia) for almost five years; part of my job was taking donations over the phone during an emergency appeal. I lost count of the people who’d call up to donate ten dollars and then issue caveats on how it should be spent – “I know this is for your Middle East appeal, but don’t give any to the Palestinians/Israelis, they’re the ones causing all the trouble”; “Unless you can personally guarantee my five dollars won’t be lining the pockets of the military junta, I shall withhold my donation to the Myanmar tsunami victims”.

There were even people who called the donation hotline not to donate at all; rather, they wanted to harangue whoever picked up the phone over the fact we were taking donations for, say, survivors of the Chinese earthquake or Hurricane Katrina or Haitian tsunami instead of the Australians who were in need all year round. Oh, but then we’d cop shit for our Breakfast Club in schools: a program designed to assist needy kids who couldn’t always get fed before school due to parental illness, incarceration, simple poverty or other problems – “What’s wrong with their parents? Why can’t my money go to help homeless people?” “This all for black (Aboriginal) kids, right? Tell their parents to get a job!” You want me to thank you for five bucks? Fuck you.

In short: nothing fucks me off more than entitled, opinionated douchebags who aren’t your ally anyway, and would better spend their time writing pissy letters to the editor of the local birdcage-liner, showing up at your workplace and telling you what the fuck to do with gifts other people happily donate.

Renee seems very much like one of those people, and because I doubt very much that she would’ve given a penny to Greta, I’m confident she’d fit in the category of people who’d call up just to sling some shit about people less fortunate than herself. In Australia this attitude is known is “Fuck you, I’m alright Jack.”

Frankly, Renee, if you didn’t donate to Greta, you can shut the fuck up about how she spends a small proportion of the gifts she received. And if you did donate, take it up with Greta personally – publicly slamming her on someone else’s thread makes you look like a – well, like an opinionated, entitled douchebag with an axe to grind, instead of a concerned supporter innocently wondering if a pair of shoes (a pair of fucking shoes, for fucks sake – grow up) is something she really needs right now. And considering your man’s predicament right now (which I hope turns out just fine, by the way, cancer scares and deaths have happened more than once in my own immediate circles), your lack of empathy is fucking stunning.

I donated to Greta, and am happy she got to use some of it for something both pleasant and practical.

Given the chance, I’d probably not donate to Renee. I’ve donated to complete strangers who seemed nice people on the description by others. Renee does not seem to fit that description, by her own words.

Actually, Wowbagger, I have a rather large base of people who follow me not only on Twitter but on a large number of social media outlets.

Is that counting one, two, three, many?

The question still remains, why are you concerned about how an adult spends her money? How does it effect you? Do you get satisfaction from whining about someone else’s spending habits? Or are you trying to feel superior to someone you despise by complaining about her doing something you don’t have enough money to do?

I suspect that if I felt a need to e-beg, I’d be more than covered for quite a bit of time. But that’s not how I was brought up.

What, that only ‘losers’ need charity/welfare/social security? Yeah, colour me unsurprised. The only difference between you and the Christian prosperity gospel types on this point is that your delusion about having earned it doesn’t include a god.

@Renee You keep calling Greta’s request for money “e-begging”. Maybe that’s the crux of your confusion. What Greta got wasn’t charity, and with all due respect to Maureen and others on this thread, wasn’t really a gift either. Greta makes her living writing for us, her audience. Just as with a novelist or screenwriter, we pay her to write. Unlike a novelist who makes enough per book to last on till the next one comes out, Greta must make enough to sustain her day to day with subscriptions and one time donations and speakers’ and freelance fees. If she’s not writing every day, or is unable to make speaking engagements due to illness, she has every right to request that the consumers of her writing to pay for it now rather than six months from now or whenever. And she has every right to spend her earnings on anything she desires or requires without answering to anyone (save perhaps her wife).

Renee, you need to learn the meaning of “gift”. Personally, I’m happy to hear that Greta spent some of the money I donated on a pair of long-lasting comfortable shoes. But you know what? I gave that money to her. Meaning it’s hers to spend as she likes. If she wants to spend it all on hookers and blow, that’s none of my business. She needed money, I put some in the tip jar. Do you demand that your wait staff account for all the tips you give them? Or do you just not tip?

That aside, if for some odd reason I *had* to e-beg, ethics would compel me to let all those donating know where their money was going. It’s a small matter of courtesy.

And that’s exactly what Christina did; she informed the world that she bought a pair of shoes, amongst other things. Does this mean that you’re now OK with the purchase of those shoes, contrary to your prior assertions?

That’s it’s normal iteration but you see i to with things ike government aid and public assistance.

“Hey! That money’s for food! What are you doing buying clothes with it?”

“Fuck, those god damn fakers. I came to drop off some old toys and they had a PS2!”

There’s a distinct element of policing how us “charity cases” spend any charity given to us. ot surprising, much of conservative philosophy is distinctly opposed to providing any form of aid so it makes sense for them to look for “legitimate” cases and “fakers” like myself and Ms. Christina. Within the US in particular the narrative revolves around welfare queens looking to game the system, looking to take more money out of te hands of those who earned it.

So money is only ever given grudgingly and only ever for the most extreme of circumstances under incredibly narrow parameters. This money can only be used one way and one way only. The freedom to use funds as you (an adult) deem fit is waved when you accept money from another. It is a reminder you are not independent, you are not free, you are a charity case and that, above all, the few dollars now in your pocket aren’t yours. That sense of security money brings, the peace of mind, that optimism that the next month might be better, is something this wing of conservatism resents.

You, a charity case, simply don’t deserve the same comforts, peace of mind or dignity they enjoy.

It disgusts me that these people also seem to dominate a sizable portion of the atheist community.

This isn’t my first time dealing with the Hendricks of the world and their feelings toward charity and us peasants.

Greta faced a tough situation, one that seriously impacted her income. Like many, MANY bloggers in far less dire circumstances, she went to her fans and jingled a tip-jar. The response was so overwhelmingly generous that the next day she screwed a lid on the jar and asked people to support other causes because she had enough to help her navigate the rough patch. Months later, she is back on her feet and realizes that she has nothing really suitable to put on those feet. So she gets a quality pair of shoes: comfortable, stylish and capable of lasting for years.

There were gifts, yes. But there were subscriptions and book sales! Imagine, if you like, that the shoes came from the book sales. Surely you wouldn’t argue that any purchase made from the proceeds of her book is anyone’s business.

Just in case you think there weren’t enough book sales to cover the shoes, I’m going to buy two more as upcoming birthday gifts.

Is it just me, or does this seem to parallel the MRA blustering that his ex-worthless should be itemizing and receipting all monies disbursed from his child support?

On top of donating, I also bought my wife and sister Paying For It over Christmas. My wife has a lot of misconceptions about what sex work is like and my sister saw me reading and thought it a fun book. That’s on top of buying Why Are Atheists Angry for myself and for my brother who’s starting to consider nontheism.

A well-read writer named Greta Christina gets cancer. She needs surgery. She will be out of work for several months. She asks her readers for help. They give her more than needed. With their approval, she donates the rest to charity.

Several months later, Greta Christina, healed and healthy, goes back to work. She needs a good pair of shoes. She buys a good pair of shoes. She posts about it on her blog. People criticize her for acting like a thieving televangelist.

It does seem a bit odd that no one who gave Greta money seems to be upset:

HOW DARE GRETA SPEND MONEY THAT OTHER PEOPLE SENT HER ON THINGS THAT I DON’T APPROVE OF!! AND ALSO, I KNOW IT’S NOT THE SAME MONEY, THAT WAS SPENT ON CANCER, BUT STILL.

You know what else pisses me off? When these motherfuckers from Hollywood are all, “hey, we really want you to come watch our movie,” then they turn around and spend the money I gave them on sports cars and scientology. Maybe if they weren’t wasting all that money, they wouldn’t need me to come watch their shitty movies.

Greta produces free content. She asked the people who enjoy the free content to support her — you may recognize this model from NPR.

I think Renee is conflating two things and mis-labelling them ‘e-begging’. One is good old enterprise and artisanship. Greta, the artisan, tries to sell her work in the town square. Except its 2013 and the town square is now the interweb thingy. Nothing wrong with that. In the olden days artisans would dance and put out a hat. You could watch the dance and pay or not as you pleased. The John Stuart Mill theme on this page has gone over my head. I will note that people who imagine themselves his fans also imagine they love enterprise. So what’s the problem?

The second thing Greta has done is to ask friends for help. Again she used the interweb. People ask friends for help all the time. I probably wouldn’t do it, but I’m a weirdo. I’m shy and proud. I’m rigidly formal. I’d have a hard time asking my family for help. But that’s what people do. They ask friends for help.

Actually, Wowbagger, I have a rather large base of people who follow me not only on Twitter but on a large number of social media outlets. Also, my nick on more than a few of those outlets doesn’t correspond with my actual legal name where I have an even larger base of supporter/followers/friends/co-workers/etal. I suspect that if I felt a need to e-beg, I’d be more than covered for quite a bit of time. But that’s not how I was brought up. That aside, if for some odd reason I *had* to e-beg, ethics would compel me to let all those donating know where their money was going. It’s a small matter of courtesy. I’d feel like scum if I didn’t and suddenly put out how I bought a bitching pair of shoes. MHO.

Protip Renee, you cannot boast in one breath about how many people hang on your every gem of an opinion and then use the phrase “my humble opinion” Just sayin.

This reminds me of my attitude pre-atheism. I’d refuse to give money to panhandlers because “oh my god, they might spend it on booze instead of food.”

So the fuck what? It’s charity. You can’t mandate that people spend your charity the way you want. Charity has no caveats. I donated about $60 or so to someone in return for a commissioned drawing, and five months later she let me know she couldn’t finish the piece and would refund the money. I didn’t even blink before responding she didn’t have to do that. The $60 was a donation to help her make rent, the picture was a bonus. I wasn’t torn up she wasn’t able to finish the picture.

If you donate to someone along with the attitude that you get to dictate where every penny goes, or to ask the person to account where every cent goes, then stow your charity and don’t even bother, cause you’re not in a giving mood, you’re just trying to shore up good favor and show how charitable you are.

If Greta had even given an inkling what the *months* worth of money was going to, I’d be much more accommodating. But she hasn’t. Not one single tweet or post about it.

ReneeHendricks @20:

…ethics would compel me to let all those donating know where their money was going. It’s a small matter of courtesy. I’d feel like scum if I didn’t…

Greta Christina wrote, way back on October 19th:

I will be able to comfortably cover my mortgage and other expenses for a few months… and I’m seriously contemplating donating the overflow — probably to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Light the Night Walk via the Foundation Beyond Belief, and/or to Camp Quest.

Unlike a novelist who makes enough per book to last on till the next one comes out

I agree with you in general, Ibis, you are exactly on the mark – except the quote above. As a novelist, I can tell you that novelists do not make enough per book to last until the next one comes out (well, if you’re JK Rowling or Stephen King, this does not apply). Most novelists have a day job, because writing (of any kind) pays quite poorly.

Just wanted to get that out there, so when the day comes that a novelist needs help and then has to buy a pair of shoes, this will already be covered 😉

You know, this is along the same lines as, “Jessica Ahlquist received money from people, therefore she did it all for the money!” It’s an idiotic leap to an idiotic conclusion, and is in essence concern trolling toward those who donated money. You know what, Renee et al? If you didn’t donate money to Greta, then you have NOTHING to complain about. Leave that to the people who actually donated money. And if you DID donate money, you did so with the assumption, on good faith, that it would go toward helping Greta out.

Greta is under NO obligation, to ANYONE, to give us a detailed status report of every goddamn cent that was given to her. She’s not a 501(c). She’s not beholden to her donors to report jack shit.

As others have said, go and run back to your little cult. And fuck you for making it about YOU, like most of your fellow Slyme Pit denizens seem to love doing.

@Renee
I don’t have a horse in this race. I wasn’t aware till after the event of Greta Christina’s illness or fundraiser. You, I had never heard of until today. Basically, I’m just a person sitting at a laptop in the UK having a cup of tea, who looks at various blogs on this network once in a while.

Would it interest you at all, or make you reflect for one second, to know that to me – a normal, no-axe-to-grind person encountering this ‘argument’ as an outsider – you, by your tweets above and your comments in this thread, come across as really quite deeply unpleasant, mean-spirited, and self-important?

I just offer it because I daresay that’s not how you think of yourself; but if you’re behaving in such a way as to give that impression to a total stranger, then… you’re making some bad choices somewhere, no?

As a fellow Pratchett-fan, you should know that troll counting goes ‘One, two, many, lots’.
Seriously, though, I’m glad I’m not the only person who thought of the Sam Vimes Theory of Boots.
(And even if Greta had bought $400 of Skittles, it’s her money to spend how she sees fit. Granted, had she bought that many Skittles, it would have raised an entirely different set of questions, but ‘How dare she spend money on that?’ wouldn’t be one of them.)

@4 ” … no ethics … if we had to for some reason, you had better believe every single cent sent to us would be publicly accounted for. That’s my problem. ”

Actually the way ethics works is, you give the accounting BEFORE asking for money. If you give someone money with no qualifiers, then you have no right to complain. That is why non profits offer both targeted and untargeted donations. With the untargeted kind, you have no right to complain, you just give your money to someone else next time.

For an example that is not atheist related or related to anyone here, see the Everybody Loves Raymond episode where they decide to help his brother out by giving him some money, then his brother went on a vacation. They were upset that he did that with the money instead of paying off some of his debt, but eventually figured out they had no right to complain: they gave the money to him for whatever he wanted.

If you want to make sure your money is spent a certain way, then give a targeted donation to a non profit you trust.

And best wishes to her guy; I hope his lymphoma tests bring good news (such as negative results or an easily-treatable situation). I wouldn’t wish cancer on anybody, regardless of any political disagreements.

Renee Hendricks @ 4 – don’t you dare call it “e-begging” – that’s bullshit. It’s no more begging than it is for museums and cathedrals and the Carmel mission down the road here to request donations. Greta provides content, which many people value. Requesting donations in that context is not begging.

In fairness to Renee Hendricks, let’s not forget that Greta didn’t just buy shoes– they were LOW HEELED BLACK PUMPS!! If Greta isn’t stopped soon, she’ll start buying white blouses and gray flannel skirts and maybe even getting REALLY wild and crazy and branching out into BEIGE JACKETS!! I’m telling you, it’s the beginning of the end of Civilization As We Know It.

How do we know you didn’t just get an old pair of Keds? How do we know you’re not actually walking around barefoot? Isn’t the so-called problem of uncomfortable shoes just playing the victim?

YEAH! How do we know Greta didn’t do the exact opposite thing, and throw all her shoes away in the garbage? Not even recycle or donate or use to make a leather hassock, but simply throw away? HOW DO WE KNOW?

@Renee First off, it would never occur to us to go online and e-beg.
See there’s your problem right there – Greta writes – we like what we read – she asks for help we pay. There’s no begging involved. Unless ofcourse authors and journalists e-beg too.
And since I bought her book instead of donating , there is no expectation from me atleast as to what she uses the money for.

The most charitable interpretation is that she either missed that post of Greta’s or forgot it. And if that’s the case, I’d expect her ethics to compel her to comment, Tweet or email an apology to Greta as soon as she realizes her mistake.

I hope that’s not too charitable. I keep thinking, though, about the haters who say that harassment isn’t really harassment, or that threats aren’t really threats, or that rape isn’t realy rape, and I wonder if there is going to be denial that what was obviously an inkling of what Greta was going to do with the money wasn’t really an inkling. I guess we’ll need to wait and see.

The most charitable interpretation is that she either missed that post of Greta’s or forgot it.

Now that you’ve been charitable to ReneeHendricks in this manner, I demand that she account for every second of her life since Greta first blogged about her diagnosis until today. If she missed that post of Greta’s, I want to know exactly what sorts of frivolous stuff she’s been wasting her time on.

Greta offered to refund any money which the donor felt was misused. Nobody has taken her up on this offer. So the donors are either unaware of this manufactured kerfuffle or don’t want a refund. Apparently Ms. Hendricks falls in one of these categories. Well, there is the possibility she didn’t actually send any money to Greta, but how likely is that?

If you’re that hard up for money that you have to ask people to donate to you when you’re out of commission for a month, then you can’t afford these shoes. Either that or you’re a lying fucking little cunt.
That’s all I have to say on the subject. Yeah. I hope you trip on your fucking Fluevogs. Enjoy.

That’s comparatively mild. Much of it is rage at Greta for the mereness of stage 1 endometrial cancer.

Two things:
Jay at comment #6, Never mind ‘privilege-checking’, I think you should spend a while examining your own sense of perspective.

Bitter; envious; pompous; self-important; spiteful; callous; mean-spirited; arrogant; ignorant; immature; irrelevant; delusional; disingenuous; unimportant; disregarded; disrespectful. What do all the words in that list have in common?
In an illustrated dictionary, Ms. Hendricks’ mugshot would appear alongside all of them.

Fuck me. I managed three minutes of Bumblebee’s video and I want to reach through my monitor and throttle her, I can’t understand how anyone be that transparently mendacious. It’s puke-makingly puerile, it’s dishonest, it’s ugly, and it’s hatred for hatred’s sake. “I don’t like you, therefore anything you do is bad.”

Colour me surprised. Who’d’ve known it’d be far easier to slam Greta on someone else’s blog a couple of times and then bugger off back to her nest of vipers, instead of taking her problem to Greta directly?

And I’m off to do something a bit more worthwhile – raising money to repair cleft lips/palates in children of non-1st world areas. Feel free to contribute when it’s set up. I guarantee no $270 shoes will be purchased with the funds

I think we can justifiably assume conclude base maliciousness on her part, and so fuck charity: she was purposefully lying with her “not one post” comment.

My wife taught me, years ago, that if you leave no tip in a restaurant, your waiter will assume that you’re an asshole, so if you want to make sure your waiter knows that you thought that the service was terrible, you tip two pennies. I might suggest doing the same to Hendricks’ upcoming fundraiser, if it wouldn’t be seen as a swipe at the kids, which it would, so forget it.

Hey just a quick one. (actually a long one)
What’s the definition of “a few months”?

Last i checked Greta was admitted for treatment late October and was working in some capacity in December where she attended paid speaking engagements.

Off topic- Hell, she’s completely entitled to buy a sportscar if she so desires.

The only issue i see is if she bought it with the proceeds of the and i quote: “Which brings me to the part where you can help.
If I could not worry about money for the weeks while I’m recovering, it would take a big, big load off my mind.” donations(?)

As you can see, a sportscar isn’t on the list of “not worry about money for weeks while i’m recovering…..” and neither are Fluevog shoes. I would accept mortgage repayments and general living expenses (during the weeks of recovery).

So, the question is, did Greta buy a sportscar (Fluevogs) with her post-op earnings while her mortgage was sorted by donations received under the guise of “while i’m recovering, it would take a big load off my mind.”?

Would that fall under the rule of a double income? Would donators feel cheated if Greta spent on luxuries whilst the bleeding heart community paid off her house?
Thanks

“So, the question is, did Greta buy a sportscar (Fluevogs) with her post-op earnings while her mortgage was sorted by donations received under the guise of “while i’m recovering, it would take a big load off my mind.”?

Would that fall under the rule of a double income? Would donators feel cheated if Greta spent on luxuries whilst the bleeding heart community paid off her house?”

punchdrunk you really are missing the point, or intentionally misrepresenting my querie as an attack of some sorts.
Did Greta tell the community that she intends on receiving a double income so she will be able to splash around some handy cash on extras, or did she make a plea for some assistance to help her not worry about money during her recovery?

Greta blogged about paying up her expenses which include her mortgage for several months.(how long exactly? Few months? Will she honestly answer this one?)
The good news would be that Greta’s expenses at the moment are zero, thanks to her kind donators.
So, thanks to the extra income she’s able to afford luvuries. This can be a direct result of the donations she’s received, and could be considered a double income.

Hi Dave W.
Please don’t look for reasons to be offended. That’s not my intention. If you took offense i apologise.

If i donated to OxFam and learned later that the executive director used charity funds to pay for his coke and prostitute habit and G6 flights to France for lunch, i’d think twice about donating next time.

Sorry Dave W. I was too brisk in my answer.
If the OxFam executive paid his mortgage with charity funds, which left him free to splurge on good times with his salary, yes, i’d still be annoyed about it.

For a woman doing white collar work, low heeled black pumps aren’t like a sportscar. They’re tools of the trade. This criticism is like trashing a mechanic for buying good quality wrenches. (And if you ever meet a mechanic who doesn’t think good quality wrenches are important, don’t take your car there!)

If Greta had bought a sportscar with the donated money, she would still be within in her rights. But to trash her for spending money on necessary work clothes is a kind of pettiness that reflects extraordinarily poorly on you, and not at all on her.

Okay, reading comprehension isn’t your strong point. Yes, I did, and I’m not the least bit unhappy with what Greta has said she’s done with her money. Neither paying her mortgage nor buying quality shoes is an extravagance along the lines of your examples.

Look, if Greta did not have to deal with the terrible news of cancer, and was 100% healthy, but still made a pitch to her followers for some extra cash for, i don’t know, just because. Would you expect donations to come in from far and wide just like the donations she’s recently received? My guess would be not a chance.

See, the plea for donations for a righteous cause works very well, and good for Greta.
I am however asking if, thanks to the generous donations, she’s been blessed with a handy amount of chuck away cash that she may not have had under normal circumstances whilst being healthy enough to actually do paid work, which IMO would be good reason not to need to use donations anymore to pay general living expenses.

See, her plea for assistance was to help with bills during her recovery as i understand it.
Anything used for pre-emptive and future expenses long after she’s resumed her career is defrauding her followers.

UnbelieveSteve, you are being deliberately obtuse. OxFam promises to use money you give them to support hungry people. Their overhead is published and easily available. You are within your rights to expect that the published non-overhead percentage of your money goes to support hungry people.

Greta promised to use money you (well, no, not you) give her to support herself.

I just wanted to respond to one argument I saw popping up here and there in this thread.

That Steve cannot have a problem with the way Greta spent her money because he didn’t donate.

Of course, when we are talking about ethics, we are talking about whether the behaviour is ethical.

When the evangelical on television takes donations from people to get them into heaven and flees to the Caymans, we all consider it unethical. It doesn’t matter whether we were the donors or not.

When the blogger takes donations from people to assist with her cancer and then blogging about her (objectively expensive) shoe purchase (and, also, appears to pay her mortgage several months in advance despite having returned to work after only a handful of weeks) then we may discuss whether or not that is unethical. Depending on the circumstances, it may be similarly unethical to the Caymans evangelical (although we may then discuss degrees of seriousness).

To say that Steve (or whoever) is not a donor is an ad hominem argument and this should be pointed out in rational discourse. It is clearly being relied upon as to why he isn’t qualified to speak on the matter because he wasn’t personally put out by her receipt of donated funds.

I am however asking if, thanks to the generous donations, she’s been blessed with a handy amount of chuck away cash that she may not have had under normal circumstances

Once again, this question is easily answered. In fact already has been upthread. Greta cut off donations when she had enough to pay her mortgage for a couple months. She was amazed by the outpouring of support and said “enough!” During those couple months, she did not work. This is all exactly as spelled out in the original tip-jar post.

This isn’t a fucking news report where you have to guess at the details. They are all right here on this site. And there’s a special machine called “The Google” that can help you find them. Until you do, try shutting up.

Johnny Vector. Let’s look at the reasons stated in Greta’s blog for the purpose of the donations. Let’s assume no one here is a mind reader and needs to rely on Greta’s clear and concise reasons for the donations plea.

“Which brings me to the part where you can help.

If I could not worry about money for the weeks while I’m recovering, it would take a big, big load off my mind.”

This brings me to my unanswered question. Is Greta taking advantage of the donations as a second income?(which was not clearly expressed by Greta during her charity drive).
Paying mortgage and living expenses for several months in advance, whilst possibly returning to paid work? Is this intentional or a happy accident?

Ethical by definition has a robust meaning.
Your definition of the word does not trump it’s true meaning.

Thanks for the conversation. I truly appreciate the discourse. Although, i could take some lessons in arguing a point from some of you, but keep in mind a person’s ability to argue does not automatically make him the winner.
See you later people.

When the blogger takes donations from people to assist with her cancer and then blogging about her (objectively expensive) shoe purchase (and, also, appears to pay her mortgage several months in advance despite having returned to work after only a handful of weeks) then we may discuss whether or not that is unethical. Depending on the circumstances, it may be similarly unethical to the Caymans evangelical (although we may then discuss degrees of seriousness).

That is a very foolish comparison. People who donate to televangelists believe they are donating to spread the Word of God, or perhaps they’re told that the money will go to help the poor and hungry.

Instead, the money is used to accumulate wealth for hucksters.

Money was given to Greta to help with living expenses. Many donors urged Greta to use some of the money for something frivolous, something to make her happy. (As it happens, the shoes in question aren’t “frivolous,” but since some people insist on viewing them that way, you should know that nobody–nobody who donated seems to have a problem with the idea that she might have spent some of the donated money on non-necessities.)

To say that Steve (or whoever) is not a donor is an ad hominem argument and this should be pointed out in rational discourse. It is clearly being relied upon as to why he isn’t qualified to speak on the matter because he wasn’t personally put out by her receipt of donated funds.

No, the question has not been raised as an ad hominem. The point is that none of Greta’s supporters give a damn whether she spent the donated money on her mortgage or on shoes or on purple sequin-covered coffee mugs and boxes of bon bons. She is a blogger who was facing a medical crisis, knew she would be unable to work for an unknown amount of time, so she asked for donations.

Not one of Greta’s supporters has a problem with the damn shoes. Not one of her supporters has asked for their money back. What does that say to you?

Steve, Greta is not accountable to her donors. When she went through a hard time they gave to her with no strings attached and she has been reasonably transparent about what she’s done with the cash. (By ‘reasonably’, I mean that she tells her followers what is going on with her life, including that she’s bought new shoes, and is not required to give a line-by-line accounting of expenditure for Pecksniffs and scolds such as yourself.)

The only people that Greta is accountable to is the Revenuers, and from what she has said she’s paid tax on those earnings. So there’s nothing untoward here. Plus she’s earning again, and so she’s free to spend her money how she wishes. Furthermore, she’s offered to hand back donations to anyone who asks, an offer that so far no one has taken her up on.

Did she get a windfall? Yes. She said so publicly, telling us how ovewhelmed she was with the generosity of the donations, to the point where she quickly shut down the appeal.

That answers your question as to whether this was intentional or a happy accident. Furthermore, she is free to spend that windfall how she wishes, whether it is on her mortgage, on shoes or on donations. It’s not your business, or mine, what she spends it on.

If you don’t like her not giving you a double-ledger account of her spending, then feel free to not donate to her again. I’m sure that any genuine donors who are miffed with her shoe purchases will do the same in future.

* Greta asks for money when in a tight situation because of health reasons.

* A group of people (let’s call them group A) give her some money.

* Several months later, when she has started working again, Greta buys a pair of shoes.

* A group of people who did not give her money (let’s call them group B) object to this strongly. Group A have absolutely no problem with it.

Considering that the monetary transaction at no point involved group B in any way, I’m struggling to work out what business it is of theirs. This is people who don’t like Greta flailing around for reasons not to like Greta.

See, her plea for assistance was to help with bills during her recovery as i understand it.
Anything used for pre-emptive and future expenses long after she’s resumed her career is defrauding her followers.

How could it be fraud if the money was given with no expectation other than that Greta would have an easier time coping with her surgery and recovery?

Also, how do you define “long after?” If I’d donated $259 to her (just an example number), then she’s $259 richer today than she would have been had she not done the fundraiser. She’ll be $259 richer ten years from now, too. Her balance sheet will always reflect the money I donated, to the point where if she dies at least $259 in the black, then whoever inherits her estate will be $259 richer because of my donation, and so will whoever inherits their estate, and so on until someone dies penniless.

So what’s the cut-off date for your complaining about Greta’s use of my and other donors’ money? Are you going to be here every time she mentions spending a modest amount of cash on something that isn’t absolutely strictly necessary to remind her how she owes her ability to do that to her donors from 2012? Because your “pre-emptive” argument sure sets you up for doing just that. Imagine the horror if, years from now, she pays off her mortage “a few months” early!

rocko2466 @104: His donor status is relevant because he has brought no evidence forward to suggest that Greta used the money in any unethical way, so UnbelieveSteve’s motivations for implying that she’s dishonest are clearly fair game for examination.

Rocko, how could buying shoes possibly be unethical? How could it make her comparable to a televangelist?

She had cancer, not an invisible man telling her he would heal the sick or send someone to heaven if people gave her money. She then spent that money on reasonable things, like a pair of shoes. She doesn’t fund her media empire, her mega church or her mansions and mistresses with it. She paid bills and bought one damn pair of shoes.
This is ludicrous and indefensible asshattery, as per the usual from Hendricks & Bumble Bee.

Her readers, fans and supporters donated, not brainwashed believers who give money because an imaginary man needs it, but because she had cancer and needed actual help. Help, she should not need in a civilized society. Medical care should not be a privilege. People donated for a real cause, not because they were being fleeced by a con-artist.

Why are people who bring this up ignoring the comments of the donors who, before the shoe purchase, said that Greta should treat herself to something if their donation led to an excess beyond her needs? Why are they ignoring that a portion of the funds came in the form of book sales? Why are they ignoring that it was simply a “It’s about time I did this, wish I hadn’t needed a whack over the head through her misfortune” catalyst for some to do a one-time or monthly subscription for the content she provides?

My son is on his feet all day at work. On his salary, he bought cheap shoes. They caused him pain, which he tried to alleviate by paying more money on insoles. They wore out rather quickly. He bought more cheap shoes, more insoles.

More than a year ago, I bought him quality shoes, requiring that he put aside what he had been paying for cheap shoes as a replacement fund. He doesn’t have pain; he doesn’t need to buy insoles. He’s still wearing them. The replacement fund made up of the cheap shoe replacement costs is now greater than the cost of another pair of quality shoes.

With an initial higher outlay, Greta used donated funds for long-term savings. Under those circumstances, if Greta had asked specifically for shoes (even if she squeeeed over them), I would still have donated.

I’m not the person who may need to explain to her followers that it’s OKAY to plea for donations so one can have an easy “privileged” life for a short while […….] Privileged thanks to her followers’ donations

A minorpoint maybe, but why do idiots like UnbelieveSteve use the word ‘privilege’ as though it were something to be ashamed of? There is absolutely nothing wrong with privilege unless it’s abused.

Because they have long had the privilege of reading some very fine writing for free; because they appreciate the source of that privilege; and because they are a decent, generous bunch empathic to Greta’s plight, a lot of people, in a very short space of time, removed the spectre of financial hardship hanging over her and then some, allowing her to focus all of her energy on her health.
So, is it correct to say that Greta is privileged to have the talent to write so well?
Yes she is.
Was she privileged to have had such a positive and generous response to her plight?
Damn right she was.
Was she privileged that so many people continued to contribute after Greta had said that she had received more than enough to cover her expenses? Or that so many of the contributors said “So use it to get something nice for yourself; you deserve it”?
Of course she was.
Has Greta expressed gratitude for all of the privilege that was gifted to her?
Indeed she has.
And then she bought herself a pair of shoes. Does buying a pair of well-crafted, comfortable, stylish (though ‘Pilgrim’ is a misnomer; that style harks back to Tudor England. Were you not privileged enough to get to watch ‘Blackadder’ over there in the States?), long-lasting and, insinuations to the contrary, reasonably priced handmade shoes, after being told to treat herself to something nice for herself, really constitute an abuse of any of that privilege*?

Right, so no one wants to discuss the ethics of ShoeGATE? Or more appropriately MortgageGATE?

The fact that you conveniently dismiss the potentially unethical practice of donation pleas under one guise and the use of those said donations for another demonstrates the ignorance of some of the bleeding heart defenders here.

Just for a moment i would like you to consider some reading without wearing your GC glasses.

Greta. This question is for you. How many months of free living once you returned to work can you attribute to the generous donations from your donation drive? How many “months in advance” mortgage payments did you need to collect from donators to take a big, big load off your mind?

Did you have a figure in mind before the charity drive? Was it $5K – $10K? Did you publish your target amount for expenses? (no). Why not just try your luck for maximum coin? After all, no one really knows right?

Steve, exactly what are you hoping to accomplish here? Are you a Christian or some other faith, and hoping to hurt the atheist community? If you are not a believer, exactly how do you think this attack on Greta will lead to a positive result for other nonbelievers? It should be obvious by now that the people who gave Greta money are unconvinced by your arguments and don’t regret their generosity. So who is your intended audience?

Because it looks to me– and I didn’t even know Greta was sick, let alone send her money, so I’m not really tied to any side– that the only scandal here is the fact that you and Renee and maybe a few other people are trying to create a scandal in the face of everyone else telling you they don’t find Greta’s behavior at all scandalous.

UnbelieveSteve, how disingenuous are you? Providing two links to give us an ‘unbiased’ view of this manufactured scandal (that’s ‘scandal’,not ‘ gate'; gate has never, ever meant scandal except in the minds of the lazy and unimaginative) sounds like such a good idea, doesn’t it? Except for the fact that the first link was to a blogspot created by you just a few hours ago, and the second was obviously written by your co-hater Hendricks. And both are full of lies, jealousy, and spite. I mean, I’m sure you’ve read the parts where Greta said that she was planning to donate the excess to certain charities, and where others who had contributed, or who were in the process of contributing told her to to hang on to it a little longer in case of future complications, and to BUY HERSELF SOMETHING NICE, yet you still persist in your lies and snidey insinuations.
What you are both doing is projecting your own lack of moral fibre onto somebody else. What I’m reading in your vitriolic posts is “this is how we would abuse the generosity of others, therefore this is what Greta is doing because we are unable to understand that others have a different mindset to ours”. Doesn’t the fact that not a single contributor to date has objected to Greta’s use of the money, much less asked for their share back, tell you ANYTHING? In fact, your behaviour reminds me of an old sick joke, which I am about to reproduce here but giving you and your partner-in-vitriol the central roles, which should appeal to your egos if nothing else.

It’s Christmas morning, and little Steve and his friend Renee, having opened their disappointingly few presents, go to visit a little girl living in the same block of flats. Imagine their amazement when little Greta shows them her own presents. There’s all the latest games consoles with piles of games to play on them; there’s a laptop computer, e-readers, i-phones, i-pods and a multitude of all the latest electronic gadgetry; there’s clothes and toys and chocolates and pretty much everything that any child could hope for.
“IT’S NOT FAIR!” yell little Steve and Renee in unison, “WHY CAN’T WE HAVE CANCER TOO?”

UbelieveSteve seems to think that there exists some implicit contract between Greta and her donors, a contract which spells out in meticulous detail how the donated money would be spent and when, and so if she appears to deviate from that schedule, it not only suggests breach of contract (which could be accidental and thus benign), but intent to defraud with malice aforethought!

It seems to be understood by all donors, however, that no such contract ever existed. Greta’s original request was vague, with no specific endpoints, milestones or limits. If anything, the contract people were agreeing to by donating read nothing more than “Greta needs help, so here’s some money to cover some expenses.”

Yes, if Greta had flown off to Vegas the next day and blown all the cash, her donors would have been angry, and rightly so, since Vegas hedonism isn’t “expenses.” But she didn’t do that at all. In any way. Even if she paid more of her mortgage than might have been strictly necessary doesn’t violate the “contract” that was actually in place (instead of the mythical one that Steve has invented). Nor does buying a pair of awesome shoes.

Put this way, it’s clear that UnbelieveSteve (and perhaps rocko2466) thinks that we donors are too blinded by Greta or too stupid to see how badly she’s behaving (the “ethical question”). But I knew exactly what I was agreeing to when I donated, and nobody has presented any evidence that Greta has violated the agreement as *I* understood it even a teensy, tiny bit. Any argument which fails to present such evidence (evidence that Greta has done something with the money other than what I expected her to do) will necessarily be uncompelling, to say the least.

Dave W, looking back through the vitriolic comments I think that they are also making a very fundamental mistake in as much as they seem to be confusing donations made to a person for that person’s own use, with money donated to a person (or charitable organisation, etc) for the benefit of a third party. So if Ophelia (for example) were asking for donations on behalf of Greta, and then bought herself something out of the money that was meant for Greta, then I think we’d all condemn her actions.
But that isn’t what happened here. In this instance Greta bought herself something out of (or at least could afford to buy something thanks to the easing of her financial situation because of) the money that was donated to Greta and for the personal use of Greta, however she saw fit to spend it. In which case, as we all keep trying to tell them, THERE’S NOTHING TO SEE HERE. MOVEON PLEASE!

Acolyte of Sagan @125: Of course you’re right. The “contract” is different when it’s a person collecting on behalf of others, which is exactly why the OxFam and Televangelist analogies fail to match Greta’s situation.

Dave W, it’s as clear as the chips on their shoulders that their objections are baseless, as so many here (and on other blogs) have patiently – or not so patiently, as the case may be – pointed out time and again. They have to have realised this by now, or at the very least realised that as we saw through their objections from the start, they’re not going to convince anybody by carrying it on. The trouble is, they also appear to be incapable of putting their hands up and saying “mea culpa”, and so are merely digging themselves a deeper hole (by the way, would you mind saying ‘Hello’ to Satan for me if you meet him down there, Steve and Renee? you’re certainly shovelling deep enough!) by continuing to defend what even they know is beyong defending.

This is so non-controversial that I can only respond to the ignorance of others:

ReneeHendricks @4 – I already knew you were a despicable character (you stand out), but assuming you have affection for your guy, why would you use him to illustrate your pettiness?

Jay @6 – I will expect confirmation from you that you even believe in the concept of privilege before I give any credence at all to your comment.

Badland @68 – There are two people whose videos I will never watch: Wooly Bumblebee and Victoria Jackson. If you have any question as to why, watch one video from each (at least you’re already 3 minutes into assignment).

UnbelieveSteve – your comment about the ‘double income’ is not very perceptive of the realities of recovering from surgery. Doctors will give you a range of time for recovery with various qualifications as ‘no work’, ‘possibly back at work for short periods’, ‘back at work but exhausted’ and ‘back to normal’. But the thing is, every body reacts differently and you can’t make firm plans based on the doctor’s recommendations. And sometimes you get a good day in among all of the exhausting ones.
After my own fibroid surgery, my doctor told me to expect to take 6 weeks before I could return to work. However, my boss at the time determined that three weeks was enough time off. When the surgery had to be repeated a second time in the next three months, he didn’t want to pay me at all and even though that surgery hit me harder, I still had to go back after only three weeks after that one as well, it being insinuated that I was lucky to be being paid while ‘abusing sick leave’.
Greta is able to work on her stuff while at home recovering, in her own time. At the time of her surgery, she did not know how quick her return to her work would be and she was being responsible and planning for the most reasonable amount of time off. She is doing better than that timeline, but she still has to take it slower than before the surgery.
I’m glad that she is doing better and I clench a fist in salute. Almost had to have a hysterectomy myself when they were trying to remove a 5-pound shoggoth out from above my uterus and the vertical scar was a pain to deal with for weeks.

“The bad news again, and the part where I’m going to ask for help: This situation is going to seriously interfere with my ability to work for a little while. I’m going to be weak and doped up on pain meds for at least a couple of weeks after the surgery — possibly longer — and travel will be inadvisable for six weeks after the surgery. And all that’s assuming the best-case scenario of “no chemo or radiation”… which, again, is the most likely scenario, but not the only one.”

“Speaking gigs are a significant part of my income, both for the honoraria and the book sales.”

“If I could not worry about money for the weeks while I’m recovering, it would take a big, big load off my mind. So I’m swallowing my pride, and am doing a fundraiser/ pledge drive.”

The [bold] statement above is in essence, the plea to the community for cash/donations to alleviate her worries related to financial commitments during her recovery time.

As I understand it, this is the nature of the cause.

Greta in no way, shape or form worded her appeal to the community for funds to be sent as gifts for the sake of “Gifting” a sum of money. That would be outright begging IMO, and would be viewed as such.

Greta has “donate” and “subscribe” buttons as a permanent fixture on the side bar of her blog page/s. This is clearly understood by the reader as a suggestion by the author to donate or subscribe to her blog if the audience sees some value in her writings.

You will also notice two more buttons located on the sidebar of each page directing the reader to make either a donation or recurring subscription payments to” Free Thought Blogs” if they so wish.

This particular blog has an additional two buttons embedded at the bottom of the post, which can be generally assumed to be a utility provided by the author to allow her readers/donators to make donations or subscription payments in relation to her panhandling.

GC expressed her gratitude to her readership for which she described as “a thumping success.”

She further wrote:

“It has exceeded all my expectations. I will be able to comfortably cover my mortgage and other expenses for a few months, while I recover my health and get my writing and speaking career revved up again afterwards. No further donations or spreading of the word are necessary: I’ve actually gotten somewhat [definition: adverb- To a moderate extent or by a moderate amount] more than I really need, and I’m seriously contemplating donating the overflow — probably to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Light the Night Walk via the Foundation Beyond Belief, and/or to Camp Quest. (I feel okay about asking my readers for financial help, but I feel weird taking more than I really need.)”

This concluded the charity drive. (Ending at approximately 2:42pm, October 19th 2012, based on the time of first comment posted thereafter)

Upon reading this post^ I noticed some inconsistencies relating to the original request for donations.

GC explicitly states in her pre-donation post dated December 18th 2012, she is in need of donations to cover expenses for the weeks whilst recovering.

At the conclusion of the charity drive Greta states clearly that she intends to use the donations to cover mortgage and other expenses for a few months.

This has since been trumped with a new statement published January 6th 2013.

“I spent the overwhelming majority of the donations from that fundraiser paying my mortgage several months in advance.”

This statement implies the recipient has received donations which exceeded the target. (overflow)

Greta Christina made a call to end the fundraiser just 29 hours after its commencement. The recipient then directs any further donations to be forwarded directly to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Light the Night Walk via the Foundation Beyond Belief, or to Camp Quest. GC however, merely contemplates, albeit seriously, donating the overflow- “probably” to the above mentioned charity organizations.

November 4th 2012

Greta publishes a post asking her followers to once again contribute to another cause. Skepticon, an event on the atheist/sceptical calendar were experiencing financial difficulty due to low funding. This conference is listed on Greta’s calendar, as she is a nominated speaker for the event.

“I was supposed to speak at Skepticon 5. My cancer surgery threw a monkey wrench into that plan, although we’re hoping that I’m well enough by November 9 to get me Skyped in.”

Further:

“Now, as many of my readers know, I recently did a fundraiser here on this blog, to help cover my expenses while I recover from cancer surgery. As readers also may know, I stopped that fundraiser about a day after it started, even though word about the fundraiser was still being spread and donations were still coming in, since I’d already raised all the money I needed and then some.”

At this point in time GC seems to be relying on the donations received (for living expenses) but sets an example for her followers by stating “Ingrid and I just donated $100.00 to keep Skepticon going. Please chip in what you can. Thanks.”

This may simply be Greta’s preferred choice of charities for at least part of her overflow contribution. There is yet to be any publication by GC, or the interwebz, or any single charity organization expressing thanks for receipt for any other (overflow) donations.

December 21st 2012

Greta has now returned to work in some capacity and creates a blog

“It’s a Friday evening, and there’s a party Ingrid and I said we’d go to. It’s a Friday evening, which all too often means Ingrid and I are exhausted by our work weeks.”

This statement suggests Greta has resumed work duties.

Further:

“I’m at a conference. Or rather, I’m in a hotel room at some un-fucking-godly hour in the morning, getting ready for a conference. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a morning person, and I am fighting the urge to say “Fuck it,” to return to the big comfy hotel bed and sleep for six more hours, to stay in the big bed all day watching TV and masturbating and ordering room service. But I remember, vaguely and distantly through my groggy haze, that I actually do like this work, that I am wildly fortunate to be able to do this work, that once I’m at the conference I will want to be there doing this work. Also, I remember that the conference organizers are paying me to be there, and if I don’t show up they’ll want their money back.”

It’s now just under two months after surgery and GC is attending a conference and participating in paid speaking engagements.

January 4th 2013

Greta often blogs about current fashion, and in her latest instalment was discussing dressy, comfortable shoes. Several references were made to a pair of upmarket shoes designed and manufactured by John Fluevog.

It seems that Greta’s blog has now been edited and the cost and purchase of these shoes at $200+ is now edited out of the blog post.

A portion of the online community expressed outrage over the purchase of said shoes, claiming the panhandle recipient is spending charitable donations earmarked for essential living expenses on luxuries.

This behaviour initiated discourse on the blogosphere from both sides of the camp. Those in support of Greta, and those with opposing views.

The three main topics of discussion are as follows:

Is the purchase of upmarket shoes a necessity or a frivolous luxury afforded by donations pledged?
Did the panhandling recipient take advantage of the overflow of charitable donations and prepay months of living expenses, as opposed to weeks, as was stated in the first post?
Has the recipient followed the direction she gave her readers and pledged her overflow of funds to a worthwhile charity organization?

January 6th 2013

There seems to be some discussion on the blogosphere defending Greta’s receipt of some monies as “gifts”.

GC attempts to defend her use of funds by changing her mission statement to this:

“I spent the overwhelming majority of the donations from that fundraiser paying my mortgage several months in advance”

“several” definition [adjective- more than a few, an indefinite small number]

“few” definition [adjective- not many but more than one. Two or more]

Realising the true definition of Greta’s post-donation statement it can be assumed the donations GC received, adequately covered the costing for living expenses and mortgage payments, not only for a number of weeks as first published in her campaign, but now carries her expenses for several months.

Greta’s followers made several claims of explicitly stating that their donation is/was intended as a gift, therefore can be spent on items other than those expressed in the charity drive. This conversation did not start until her panhandling exercise concluded, and only by a handful of commenters on her blog.

Over 170 commenters responded to Greta’s plea and expressed their support, both emotional and monetary. I was unable to find a single entry in the comment section specifically stating the pledged contribution can be used for something other than what was described as “living expenses”.

Greta’s followers challenged the idea of unethical use of the proceeds and made several claims, whilst pointing to comments (post charity drive) approving of her use of the funds by any means she sees fit, which includes luxuries.

Several supportive commenters who did NOT contribute to the fundraising expressly advised Greta to either “spend on whatever she likes”, or “Keep the overflow for herself”.

9 commenters approving the “keep the overflow cash” idea, by self admission, did not donate.
11 commenters approving the “keep the overflow cash” idea, made no admissions to donating.
4 commenters approving the “keep the overflow cash” idea, actually made a contribution, although, one contributor, by admission, only donated pennies.

Finally, if Greta was serious about ceasing the influx of “Donations”, she’d remove the “Donate” and “Subscription” buttons located beneath her heart felt plea.

At the time of writing this article, no such attempts were made to cease receiving “ it would take a big, big load off my mind” donations.

It’s been stated several times throughout this article that the fundraising target has been reached and no further assistance is needed. The donation drive has ceased. An overwhelming amount of money raised. An overflow of donations may or may not be pledged to a worthy charity organization, based on an ambiguous statement made by GC.
END OF OBSERVATION.

If you look at all of the FTB blogs, not just Greta’s, you’ll see the donate and subscribe buttons. Avicenna (A Million Gods) has the comment “Help with Avi’s living costs, travel arrangements and his ongoing addiction to vintage erotica and faberge eggs” by his donate button. The donate buttons are separate from Greta’s request for donations to help her with a one-time financial crisis. I like certain blogs and I’ve subscribed to them. This is similar to my subscription to magazines, money paid for value received.

Rodney. That’s covered in the earlier post.
Each and every blog/page has sidebar tabs for donations and subscriptions.
Check out Greta’s panhandle plea and you will see another two tabs specifically located at the bottom of her blogpost.
These buttons are there for a purpose.
The donation drive is finished yes? Well, so should be the utility for collections which is still listed and still active.

You can see that right?

So, did Greta finish collecting or is she taking advantage of the late comers who may have overlooked the update.
She can e-beg all she wants, and as long as there are people willing to chuck her some cash, good for her.
The point of my previous post is a demonstration of ethics.
Is Greta ethical or not?
This is an opinion everyone can arrive to on their own, if only, and i mean IF ONLY, they simply observe the facts and make a reasoned judgement on nothing but the facts. Leave emotion and compassion out of it.
Thanks for reading.

…if only, and i mean IF ONLY, they simply observe the facts and make a reasoned judgement on nothing but the facts.

It is impossible to come to a moral judgement based on nothing but facts. You, hypocritically, seem to have come to your opinion based on insinuations drawn from some unanswered questions, which certainly aren’t facts.

@ Steve Ebegging? Really? This writer provides a free service and allows for donations. Many of us find her blog valuable. She has every right to charge for her work. She doesn’t. That’s mighty charitable of her. You’re playing the part of pathetic hater and you’re doing an outstanding job. Answer the questions or step off.

Jackie – I think Steve the weevil should take the $1m Randi challenge. Only the most amazing psychic could claim to know exactly how many people donated/subscribed/bought books based solely on blog comments.

Either that, or he’s a weird little muppet with too much time on his hands.

I’ve just looked at Greta’s blog. There’s two sets of donate/subscribe buttons. One is “donate/subscribe to this blog” and the other is “donate/subscribe to FTB.” There’s no separate “donate/subscribe to help me recover from cancer” or anything else. So it looks like Stevestee was being less than ethical when talking about Greta’s ethics.

Trackbacks

[…] that are somewhat more expensive than most people typically spend on shoes. Some people have taken exception to this (yes, it’s the usual gang of haters), and are expressing their objections on Twitter […]